There is still no compelling evidence – that is, evidence that amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt (or anything near it) – that Savile was the serious sex abuser as he is portrayed. And we know from similar hysterias in the recent past – notably over what turned out to be the entirely groundless 'satanic sex abuse' supposed paedophile rings with countless 'victims' – that you can get a great multiplying of allegations even in the absence of any truthful basis. What is more, the spurious 'satanic sex abuse' scandals were in respect of alleged events that were current or in the recent past, whereas the events re Savile are decades in the past and therefore very likely to be the result of 'false memories'. The psychology of constructing fabrications of past events is a human universal, and is rife whenever there is a highly salient seed upon which a construction can be made. A famous and larger-than-life individual who had myriad inconsequential encounters with others is almost bound to be the subject of a plethora of 'false memory'-based supposed incidents.

So what can we say for definite about Savile (apart from that he was on the odd side of larger-than-life, if not a creep)? Well, Savile was a personification of the role he was expected to fill. As a DJ his job was to create a fun and indeed sexual atmosphere by flirting or mock-flirting. The obvious fact is that his position, as a foremost media star within pop music culture in the febrile atmosphere of the pop music scene in its heyday, was one of an alpha-male, and as such he had and was seen to have sexual licence. Not only would it be that Savile felt able to approach girls/women sexually, but girls/women would expect and in many cases not be averse to this. Girls usually would at least go along with it, if not be actively facilitative. It must be borne in mind that just as someone in Savile's position would be both particularly attracted to and be in a position to act on his attraction to females at the peak of their appeal – a few years post-puberty, at the start of their sexual lives; correspondingly, females, in being sexually attracted to conspicuously successful males, would have been attracted to Savile, and notwithstanding a considerable age difference.

The particularly high-status older male together sexually with the nubile girl, as we can see throughout history, is as natural as it gets. Only in contemporary Western culture since the advent of the 'political-correctness' political-philosophy within the past two decades has this been regarded as a form of abuse. It is most certainly not 'paedophilia', which is defined precisely as an exclusive sexual interest in individuals below the age of puberty. Not only is Savile's interest clearly in post-pubertal girls, but it is not established even then that he had the exclusive interest necessary for a categorisation of 'hebephilia' (corresponding to 'paedophilia' but re adolescents, not children). His extraordinary position meant that he could indulge in a narrow preference for the most highly nubile females, and simply to have promiscuous sex with them without having to offer long-term partnership. This is wildly beyond any realistic hope for all but a very small minority of males, but certainly not beyond their normal dreams. The scope of Savile's sexual interest a psychiatrist would tell you is normal for males.

The upshot is that the sexual dynamics in which Savile found himself essentially were much more of a two-way street, with interactions that were mutually reinforcing. It is not at all hard to see how all this could ratchet up so that Savile got all too used to the dynamics and took liberties, as they say. It may be that instead of a formalised peck on the cheek, Savile would kiss on the mouth. There is a new 'Savile meme' of his cigar-smoke-smelling tongue rammed into unsuspecting mouths, and this likely reflects this extension of repertoire, but is also likely to be an exaggeration. Exaggeration is natural human behaviour to make an event more significant than it otherwise would be. Regarding sexual behaviour there is always the dimension that for girls/women any form of sex is often regretted because of the question that it raises of sexual proprietariness. [The main form of mutual denigration that females employ is to portray in terms of sexual over-availability. This is because it injures a female's chances of securing a male long-term (as opposed to a short-term) partner. It is the key weapon in female intra-sexual competition.] For this reason, any accusation by a female against a male of inappropriate sexual behaviour should always be regarded with some suspicion. This goes completely against the current politically dominant philosophy of 'political correctness' contempt for the male, and this is a key feature of the current hysteria against Savile.

If you then add the media feeding frenzy, which provides a huge platform for attention-seeking, and additionally the prospect of large sums in compensation payouts with minimal need to supply proof in respect of any individual incident; then you have the perfect storm to actively facilitate women to come forward to redefine as coerced past sexual behaviour to which there was acquiescence if not full mutuality. Max Clifford points out that most of the many women coming forward to him appear to be fabricating – either exaggerating out of all proportion or making up the whole thing.

To return to the issue of the nubile girl: contemporary age-of-consent law reflects a pejorative view of sex with nubiles stemming from Victorian times that is now anachronistic. The average age of puberty back then was 17, whereas now it is eleven and still falling. If the girls Savile preferred indeed were aged fifteen or fourteen, given the contemporary reality of the age of sexual maturity out of childhood, then sexual attraction to girls at these ages is normal. The objection that sexual maturity is not emotional maturity is true only inasmuch as full 'emotional' maturity may well not be until age sixteen: the onset of 'emotional' maturity is from the hormonal surge at the beginning of puberty, in that it is this hormonal surge which initiates the adult reorganisation of the brain. In consequence, there is sufficient emotional maturity by age of first sex. Clearly, the evolutionary process would never have given rise to females having sex before they were fully ready to engage in it and deal with the consequences. The brain in fact does not reach full maturity in terms of an end to profound plasticity, until age twenty-five. No-one suggests that sexual activity should be proscribed by law until that age. The average age of first penetrative sex is difficult to ascertain, but it is generally agreed to be below age sixteen – age fifteen (15.0 or 15.3 years) according to the 1999 Global Sex Survey. Yet this is an average taken across all age groups: the age of first sex of someone now aged 60 or 70 is likely to be considerably older than someone now aged fourteen. Thus, the age of first sex for today's adolescents is likely to be around fourteen if not younger. Furthermore, the definition in law of sex in terms of age-of-consent is regarding any orifice and any form of penetration (penis, finger, object), or even non-penetration, it would seem, if it involves the labia/vulva. The average age of onset of any such sexual behaviour inevitably will be notably lower still than re full penile-penetrative sex.

It is true, of course, that some girls are still very immature in all respects at age fourteen, but this is in large part a 'class' issue, given that epigenetic changes to girls born into less socially structured and secure environments – notably single-parent families in 'underclass' and other 'lower' class milieu -- bring about especially early puberty, resulting in a polarisation in average age of puberty according to broad social grouping. Augmenting this is the highly protracted adolescence and early adulthood of the middle-class education track. The issue then becomes one of an imposition on others of criminal law from a middle-class reality which is particularly inappropriate for some other social groups.

There is then the problem for such as Savile, that even if there is a desire not to infringe the arbitrary law, of how to ascertain the age of girls so as not to fall foul of the age-of-consent law. Given the falling age of puberty resulting in girls of fourteen/fifteen appearing to be years older, and the ubiquity of young girls lying about their age; then it is near impossible for a male not to fall foul of the law if he is engaging in a large volume of sexual activity. Therefore, even if Savile was mindful of this and trying to be careful, he would have ended up behaving in a way that might appear similar to how is being portrayed.

It is a further issue as to whether or not Savile was actually coercive – that is, intentionally so – in his behaviour. He hardly needed to be, and even if he actually tried to be careful in this respect, given the volume of sexual activity then with the regular miscommunication between the sexes (especially in the light of mixed signalling by females of coyness and 'come-on'), it would be fully expected that errors would be made. Compounding with the above-mentioned retrospective redefinition of consensual sex as coercive, it is almost inevitable that accusations would accrue to someone in Savile's position, irrespective of his actual character.

The allegations against Savile in respect of institutionalised girls look odd given Savile's access to girls generally. It could be that he realised that any complaint against him re such girls would tend not to be believed, and on this basis he targeted them; but his brazen attitude more widely belies this. Whether or not from his hubris as a celebrity, Savile may have regarded engagement with the girls sexually as in a real sense bringing them out of their institutionalisation and normalising to thereby actually benefit them; just as when he took them to the Top-of-the-Pops or Jim'll-Fix-It studios for recordings. The institutionalisation of such girls may well have led them more than usual to go along with the behaviour, such that a spiral of miscommunication could ensue, with Savile being unwittingly coercive. It is very easy to take the perspective that if Savile did indeed have sex with these sort of girls, that this is a simple abuse of authority and a very serious one; but the sexual dynamics above outlined apply, and there is an ever clearer basis for a retrospective redefinition of sex as coercive.

The issue of harm is held to be self-evident, and in any case it is argued that sexual coercion of females of any age, let alone at or under the age-of-consent, is fundamentally unacceptable. This stems from the very deepest biological/evolutionary reasons: the essential basis of all social system in 'policing' male access to sex (which is for reasons beyond my scope here). The obvious harm ancestrally and historically is the obvious one that a girl could end up with a child by a male who is merely indulging in extra-pair sex (and therefore is not intending to support the girl and any subsequent child) and/or is in any case somehow an unsuitable male – that is, lacking in 'good genes' (the basis of male attractiveness across biology). Well, Savile was a very high-status male and there is only one case (so far as I'm aware) in which a putative victim alleges that an abortion was required. It is not clear whether or not Savile used condoms – if, indeed, it is clear that much of the alleged actual penetrative sex took place. Irrespective of these considerations, the harm that is alluded to is the supposed most serious harm of child sex abuse. But even if there was abuse, there was no child sex abuse (unless the outlier allegation of sex with a pre-pubertal boy is proven) because the girls were all past the age of puberty. [In any case, meta-studies on the adult clinical-psychological sequelae of child sex abuse show a very surprising minimal if not null impact.] One woman is claiming that Savile's hand up her skirt when on air in a TOTP filming when she was a teenager has resulted in her subsequent broken marriage, yet there is nothing apparent in the video that she was even upset at the time. Such is the ludicrosity of the cases springing to light.

Overall, there are multiple inter-related and mutually reinforcing facets to the hysteria over Savile, and the essential truths of the male-female dynamics are being completely ignored. The feeding frenzy is feeding upon itself and may turn out to have emanated from little real meat in the first place. It may well be that Savile went beyond an excessive laddishness to exploit the lucky situation in which he found himself, to become reckless as to the acquiescence of girls to engage in sex. It may further be the case that Savile turned into (or was from the outset) an out-and-out abuser, but as yet this is unproven and there appears to be no way forward even in principle whereby it could be proven.

The Savile hysteria is a marker for our times, which will distinguish them as being peculiarly at odds with human nature and remarkably intolerant and plain stupid. Savile has become an emblem for a cultural hatred of the male. As a relatively low-status male myself, I hardly have great affection for high-status males such as was Savile; even those who behave as perfect gentlemen. The concern must be that if this is how we now jump to malign even high-status males, then as regards the majority of males – boys as well as men – we can only marvel at the extent of prejudice and contempt directed towards them.

The writer and former England rugby international Brian Moore says he isn’t at all surprised the DJ’s victims didn’t speak up earlier. As long as victims live in fear of not being listened to, they won’t talk.

"If you showed photos of average girls ages fifteen or fourteen to the average man and did not label them with the girls' ages, then all normal men would find them attractive and would react sexually. [This can be measured physiologically, so there is no need to rely on possibly dishonest verbal responses.]"

The point is that men are programmed to find females at the height of their fertility attractive.

The point is that men cannot say NO to no-strings sex.

The modus operandi of the matriarchy is to seduce men into accepting sex, and then punish them for accepting.

The only way to control this rather one-sided fight in favour of women is for men to say that it is not OK to be a Slut Single Mum.

In case you men still don't get it, what is happening now over the Savile affair is a witch hunt. This is the matriarchy consolidating its power.

Dead and retired old male celebs are being done over.

Once that happens the younger male celebs will start getting done over too.

Too bad there are so many young men prepared to collude with it to vent their outrage at these accused men because they are perceived to be so evil the moment they are accused that they do not deserve a fair trial.

The lower classes like venting about paedos because they already know they are lower than immigrants, and want someone lower than themselves to kick around.

Who is a paedo? Anyone who has had sex with anyone under 16.

And we know what sluts these fatherless schoolgirls brought up by their SSMs are these days, don't we?

When young men start getting old they will join the category of becoming a potential paedo too.

When that happens no one will care what happens to them any more.

Their mothers will be dead, their wives will have divorced them, and they will have lost touch with their children.

This the future, guys.

No alpha male is going to be seen to be defending paedos by standing up for their right to be treated as innocent TILL PROVEN GUILTY, after a fair trial.

Nobody has noticed that what Savile is being subjected to is trial by media in the Kangaroo Court of Public Opinion. That is not a fair trial, by the way, and Public Opinion is a strong but gullible monster.

If they cannot give Jimmy Savile a fair trial when he was alive, then he will be given an unfair trial when he is dead. That is what the matriarchy has done to this long-established principle of British justice, while even senior male lawyers fear to point this out.

And when he is convicted, the BBC must pay.

Who funds the BBC? Anyone in Britain who owns a TV.

These imbecilic male licence fee payers are busily piling up their own funeral pyre.

Don't expect any man in any political party to defend the beta male.

Not Cameron, not Clegg, not Miliband.

Not Farage, not Griffin nor anyone else in the even smaller and even more useless parties.

The closest the beta male has to someone that behaves like an alpha male and is prepared to defend him is ME.

But you all think I am mad, don't you?

Mad or the wrong race or the wrong sex.

And so, almost without exception, you think you should join the hysterical denunciation of Savile and others associated with him, so that you are not seen to be siding with the paedos.

But you are just digging your own graves and setting yourselves up to be even more emasculated, even more despised and even more likely to be accused of being a paedo the next time you say or do anything a woman or a child might find offensive and irritating.

Pity the men of Matriarchal Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. If they think they are already oppressed, they ain't seen nothing yet.

You must have noticed how stupid the British are getting these days. Movies like Dumb and Dumber and Idiocracy demonstrate this "progressive" degeneracy perfectly. (Yes, I know these movies were American, but the entire Western world - the Lands of Compulsory Fornication - are stuffed with sluts and bastards now. That is why it is now like a turd that is already in the toilet but won't flush away.)

Marriage is eugenic while feminism, which encourages and condones female promiscuity, is anti-eugenic.

The causes of Western malaise can be laid at the door of the feminists, who have made it a point to shit and piss on the institution of marriage, for decades.

Slay the Sacred Cow of Feminism so that Western civilisation can be rescued from the degeneracy of the Matriarchy!

Feminism is the ideology of selfish women who will cling to their privileges at any price, even if it is against the long-term national interest. You see, these women are not very good about grasping abstract ideas, unlike me. The trouble is, they have turned everyone else, including the men, into themselves.

All you need to know is that SSMs are bad for Britain, bad for America, bad for Canada, bad for Australia, bad for New Zealand, and bad for Western civilisation as whole.

Saturday, 27 October 2012

"Some former full time care workers could be awarded as much as £100,000."

The matriarchy is in full swing all right.

Daryll Christopher:

"Government cleaners and some single mothers on benefits earn much more than low level soldiers who risk their lives. They are paid less simply because they are men, and the life of a man is very cheap.

Someone should ask Mourdock what he would do if his wife and daughter were both raped and impregnated. Would he prevent them from having an abortion and make his wife and daughter carry their babies to full term, living under his roof?

Do I really need to tell you again what feminist liberal leftist socialist liberal scum have been doing to your civilisation?

Man created God to protect him from Woman. Only God and religion can save men from feminism now.

Why is feminism so insidious?

Because feminism bribes men with cheap sex until all he can think in terms of is the next fuck and next blowjob rather than the future, the long-term national interest and the next generation, and of honour, integrity and pride.

Feminism makes men think and act like women too. While real women know that any foreign invader will simply maintain them as they have been maintained before by their own men, the men of an invaded country will simply be killed or taken as slaves by foreign invaders.

That is the difference then, between you and the ladies. You won't be able to get away with being quasi-women forever, whingeing about paternity leave and the trials and tribulations of being a house-husband.

Do you think you might now like to start thinking about how you are going to challenge the matriarchy who have now taken over every important area of public life?

Or will you use the fact that you have a job, a wife and children as an excuse to say nothing and do nothing?

Then you are just useless degenerate scum who are really women with penises incapable of giving birth. Such freaks of nature deserve only extermination.

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Pretty girls don’t need a lot of education to marry into a rich and powerful family, but girls with an average or ugly appearance will find it difficult. These kinds of girls hope to further their education in order to increase their competitiveness. The tragedy is, they don’t realize that as women age, they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their M.A. or Ph.D., they are already old, like yellowed pearls.

After knocking some good sense into those misguided women who pursue a higher education, the column accuses educated, single women of sleeping around and having degenerate morals:

Many highly educated “leftover women” are very progressive in their thinking and enjoy going to nightclubs to search for a one-night stand, or they become the mistress of a high official or rich man. It is only when they have lost their youth and are kicked out by the man, that they decide to look for a life partner. Therefore, most “leftover women” do not deserve our sympathy.

The State Council names “upgrading population quality (suzhi)” as one of its key goals

The main reason many girls become “leftover women” is that their standards for a partner are too high … As girls are not too picky, finding a partner should be as easy as blowing away a speck of dust.

Some of the columns have been reposted several times over the years and list helpful tips, such as “seduce but don’t pester” and “be persistent but not willful”:

When holding out for a man, if you say he must be rich and brilliant, romantic and hardworking ... this is just being willful. Does this kind of perfect man exist? Maybe he does exist, but why on earth would he want to marry you?

Mrs Nicky Clark as she calls herself on Twitter then persuades a homosexual, Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Society, an organisation known to be atheist militants, to say this view - that disability can be God's punishment - is "immoral".

Mrs Nicky Clark who suggests that a belief in Karma or God is "obscene", "offensive" and "extremist"

All the Abrahamic faiths are fundamentally "sexist" and "homophobic". That is why Andrew Copson and his ilk want to destroy and suppress religion.

Is there now an underlying assumption that homosexuals and women who make bad reproductive choices, who choose badly their sex partners, whose mothering is suspect, and whose offspring are not quite what they ought to be, are more moral than people with religious faith?

It is karma - the ancient idea of cause and effect common to both Hinduism and Buddhism - that this particular Catholic woman who had an abortion was probably thinking about, when she saw her disabled offspring as God's punishment for her having had an abortion.

Mrs Nicky Clark wished to punish this woman for offending her, of course, and implying that her having two autistic daughters could be God's punishment of her.

It might not be God's punishment at all, it may be because Mrs Nicky Clark is a bad and neurotic mother who wanted her daughters diagnosed as autistic so she can get extra attention and extra respect, perhaps. Sometimes, we do not have to wait until the next life for our punishments to kick in.

With typical Western chauvinism, she pronounces the faith of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains as "obscene", "offensive" and gets her homo friend to add "immoral".

Because she has two mentally disabled daughters, she is now bent on preventing anyone from criticising anyone of disability. Who does she think she is? The Queen of England? Clearly. The matriarchy has now gone mad with arrogance, I would venture to say.

If she and women like her have now become Sacred Cows in Britain, one must wonder if it is now finally time to propose that they be slain.

What is the point of deifying women who make bad reproductive choices by having illegitimate and disabled offspring? Why are these women now apparently beyond criticism? What purpose does it serve? Surely it is not in the long term national interest to allow this state of affairs to continue indefinitely?

29CPublishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

I think it is certainly arguable that many Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Jews, Christians, Muslims and right-thinking members of society, even those with no religious faith, would find the idea of Mrs Nicky Clark and her cronies such as Andrew Copson, who was singly parented by his single mum, being the moral arbiters of the nation very threatening indeed.

************************************************

EXCHANGES BETWEEN MRS NICKY CLARK AND HER FOLLOWERS CONSPIRING TO REPORT ME AND CENSOR ME

[Not quite sure why Mrs Nicky Clark thinks I have made a death threat. Perhaps she is referring to my reference to Sacred Cows? It is just a metaphor, darlings, a figure of speech. I was not talking of slaying Mrs Nicky Clark but of questioning and challenging feminism. Dear oh dear. I cannot even use a metaphor without being accused of making death threats. What is the world coming to? I am sure gentlemen would not be quite so easily alarmed when you are having an honest debate with them! Ladies, it seems, are quite a different kettle of fish. If you ladies cannot take the heat of debate without screaming blue murder at the drop of a metaphorical hat, then kindly return to the kitchen!]

nicky clark @mrsnickyclark
I've seen a lot of vitriol on here but that was something else. Terrorising to silence someone just because you don't agree.
1:18 PM - 16 Oct 12

[A bit of projection there, surely, ladies? Whom have I terrorised into silence? At least I do not get my followers to gang up on someone and mass report them until they fall off their perch on Twitter!]

[Why on earth shouldn't Mrs Nicky Clark be all right?? I haven't exactly attacked her with a bludgeon, have I, as she and her followers have been trying to suggest? The Truth is all I shall bludgeon Mrs Nicky Clark and her silly girly friends with. What horrible awful women they are for trying to suggest I am some sort of death threatening cow-killing psychopath! Grow up, ladies!]

But she should use words more accurately then, shouldn't she? A lot of these feminists are stupid as well as hysterical. They know that their entire house of cards can be blown away by just the smallest puff of sweet reason. That is why they are over-reacting to any statement of opinion from any man - even if he is a lefty - that makes them feel threatened or offended. That is why they are saying men have no right to express a view about abortion.

Do they not though?

What if your wife wants an abortion, or your daughter?

Do women's rights not affect men's rights? Of course they do. It is a zero sum game too. The more rights women have, the fewer rights men have.

Who are the women who need abortions? They are overwhelmingly sluts, ie women who have been knocked up by men not their husbands.

What would happen if abortion were banned? There were would be fewer sluts around, for one thing. Women would choose their partners more carefully and practise better contraception, and sex would become dearer for men as fewer and fewer women would give them cheap slut no-strings sex. Brothels may have to be legalised.

Since men are the consumers of sex and the women the suppliers of sex, both sexes would be affected. The cost of sex would rise.

Men also pay for the bad reproductive choices of women and suffer from them. If you had fathered an unviable disabled and unwanted deformed baby, it would affect you, would it not? If your taxes were used to pay for the maintenance of the disabled and illegitimate offspring of a whole plague of women with disabled offspring, what do you think would happen to the next generation?

Would paying sluts to have disabled and illegitimate offspring lower the quality of the national gene pool?

You know it would.

Would this not affect you and your children and the future of the nation if this country were mostly peopled by degenerate sluts and bastards?

Should you not care the kind of world you leave behind for your children be they either legitimate or illegitimate? Or are you too afraid of sluts to challenge or criticise them?

And then of course abolish child benefit and repeal the Equality Act 2010 and the Equal Pay Act 1970.

Then feminism will come to a grinding halt.

Remember, the Feminist is the Red on your bed.

Feminism is the reason why we cannot return to rationally small government.

Men after all pay for the bad reproductive choices of sluts. He who pays the piper ought to call the tune, shouldn't he?

The morals of women have to be rigorously controlled or you will have half the population turning into verminous parasitical sluts and bastards who will of course multiply and then consume the best of your civilisation.

In the Bhagavad Gita, in a chapter called 'The War Within'', it states:

''Where there is no unity; the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos.''

The Gita continues thus:

"Social chaos is hell for those who have destroyed the family as well. It disrupts the process of spiritual evolution begun by our ancestors.''

Thursday, 4 October 2012, 8:39
Dear Claire -
While I am flattered at the interest you seem to have taken in me, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spamming my blog with comments and continually sending me unsolicited tweets.

As explained, I'm an advocate of the freedom of speech and believe everyone has the right to have their say. I am therefore loath to implement comment moderation or block ISPs from my site. However, if this spamming continues, I'm afraid I'll have no choice.

Kind regards.
NC

Mine to her:

Thursday, 4 October 2012, 10:08
Dear NC
I always love it when people comment on my blogs, so I thought you would be pleased! Why don't you just unblock me and moderate my comments again if your friends are getting upset?

Huh. A few days ago she tweeted that she was feeling "combative". I should also have asked her if tweets had to be "solicited".

Exchange of tweets between her and her friends that led to NuttyCow saying she was feeling "combative":

Men and women who want to punish these women simply want to punish them for their promiscuity, by forcing them to have the child, in order that they will be inconvenienced and shamed.

Some, like Mark Barnes of UKIP, even want to sterilise women who want abortions.

It seems to me to be unnecessarily vengeful and vindictive to punish the mother through the child. Allowing these children to be born would not exactly raise the quality of the national gene pool either.

But how about this as an idea?

Why don't we treat infanticide as legal if committed by either parent of the infant or by their proxy the midwife?

The advantages of this proposal are:

No abortions on the NHS ie the taxpayer.

Infanticide is in a way more "sporting", because many mothers fall in love with their babies at first sight.

The enormity of having to commit infanticide may just focus the mind of the promiscuous female about her immorality every time she spreads her legs for some sad loser she would never dream of marrying or who would never dream of marrying her, who might knock her up.

No intrusive medical procedures to test older mothers for foetal abnormality that would ruin their pregnancies.

More jobs for the girls because home births would once again become the rule rather than the exception. (It is of course envisaged that the midwife will dispose of any unwanted unviable disabled deformed baby born that its parents reject.)

0831 Half of all state schools in England don't send a single girl on to study physics at A level. Professor Dame Athene Donald, professor of experimental physics at Cambridge University and Joan McVittie, head teacher of Woodside High School in north London, give their opinions on why this is the case.

What’s in a name?

I live in Londonwith my saint-like other halfbut will soon be movinghave recently movedto Switzerland

I’m about to live alone for the 1st time in my life I’ve lived on my own for nearly a year now over two years bloody agesand can’t ever imagine living with anyone else.

I still don’t have any brothers or sisters

2 other people have lived with my family (instead of their own) for one reason or another.

I have an unhealthy obsession with gin and tonic, red wine, port and cheese

I started smoking when I was 13, I quit for a while but seem to have taken it up again.

I started drinking about the same time

My father is an orphan

He was one of the first people to be adopted in Ireland

My perfect threesome would be Mark Cueto and Ben Cohen… I don’t know, I change my mind with the wind andalthough the older I get, the less I think I’d be able to cope!I could be bothered

I have an un-natural obsession with crap cheesy pop and musicals

And am quite happy to admit I know most of the words to most songs

It annoys me when people try to sing along but don’t know the words

It’s become a rather odd habit of mine that I listen to the Les Mis soundtrack while walking home after a night out.

If I could live at any time period I would live in the late 1800′s and I would be very rich - actually, on second thoughts, I wouldn’t mind which time period I lived in as long as I was very rich!

I love flirting with people but sometimes I think I can go too far. Although, most of the time I’m not meaning to flirt at all.

It doesn’t matter if they are good looking or not

My biggest fear is the thought that people don’t want to be around me and talk to me. If it’s suggested that someone is talking to me against their will [ie, I am forcing them to talk to me and they're desperate to get away], I get stupidly upset.

I hate letting people down

But I sometimes do it

I always complain I am getting old even though I am under 30

I hate the fact that my parents must know I am not a virgin anymore (virgin’ on the ridiculous)

I can translate latin given enough time

I have known some people from the internet longer than I have known some of my closest friends

I can be a complete bitch if I want and I don’t care who knows it

I could speak Husa (Nigerian dialect) before I could speak English

I then moved onto Spanish when I was 2 1/2 and my English was rudimentary

I now have a degree in English and can’t speak languages to save my life

I don’t really have any deep dark secrets

I playused to play rugby

That does not make me a lesbian

Sometimes I worry about nothing, just for the sake of worrying

I am not a career woman – never have been although I’m starting to think now that I’m in Switzerland, I have no choice but to become one of those unmarried 40 year old women who live for their careers. That, or a cougar. Or a mad cat woman.

I can’t wait to be able to settle down in a nice house in the countryside

Now things have changed I wonder whether I’ll ever achieve this dream. I genuinely have given up on the thought of ever being married.

Despite everything that happened, I still don’t understand what N seessaw in me

I’m getting old before my time – sometimes I’d rather stay at home with a good film and a glass of wine, rather than go out with my friends

I want to be popular but I don’t think I am

I’m very argumentative when I’m drunk

When people ask me about the move and ask whether I’m scared or excited, I don’t know what to say because I’m not sure how I feel about it yet. I just say “both”. Now I’m here, I realise that actually, “both” is true.

This woman seems intelligent and good-natured enough, but she is a slut. Any old fuck buddy from her university days can send her a text after a casual meeting asking "Fancy a fuck?" and she will say yes.

The terrible tragedy of it all is that a woman like this was once a friend of mine. She did get lucky and managed to get married though her gonorrhea had made her sterile . Frances Rebecca will probably never grow up and will drink more and more gin as she gets older. Her friends will laugh with her and perhaps sometimes at her as she gets older and drunker and acquires more cats.

http://www.teamawot.com/what-is-awot/AWOT (Awesome Women on Twitter) were not serious about free speech, so perhaps they are not serious about gin and cake either. Let's hope so anyway, for the sake of the sisterhood!

She tells herself she does not care for children, but perhaps most of us cannot bear children if they are not our own. If she did have offspring she would surely feel the whole gamut of all the sublime maternal emotions, but this state of married motherhood is now only the privilege of a select few in the matriarchal West.

She is not completely stupid as she managed to get a degree in English at a good university and even learnt Latin at her private school, but perhaps, if she had managed to find a husband at the appropriate time and become a mother she could have passed her genes on. Sadly, for her and the next generation, it sounds like she already has a drink problem. It will probably not get better for her the way things are going.

She is yet another victim of feminism - yet another tragic unwitting victim. This must stop before more lives are wasted. The Aztecs practised human sacrifice, but surely what we do now is a form of human sacrifice too?

Let us have fewer women called Frances and Rebecca take to gin and mother's ruin. Let us have more women called Frances and Rebecca married with children.